Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 7
MSNBCW 5
KPIX (CBS) 3
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morel told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming
qaeda's leadership but the threat has not been eliminated. >> this campaign against al qaeda will largely take place outside declared combat zones. using a small footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign, special force operations and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combatting terrorism on their own. >> panetta also said associated al qaeda groups are making in roads. >>> republican lawmakers are stepping up their opposition to the nomination of susan rice to be the next secretary of state. they said she was misleading about who was behind the attack on u.s. consulate in benghazi. terrorism was cut out of talking points. the direct of national intelligence, the dni. >> reporter: u.n. ambassador susan rice relied on those talking points during an appearance on "face the nation" where she called it a spontaneous demonstration. not an act of terrorism. >> we do not have information at present that leads to us conclude this was premeditated or preplanned. >> reporter: republicans have accused her o
the work of terrorists, perhaps affiliated with al qaeda. in an appearance on "face the nation" five days after the attack, rice gave no hint of that. >> we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. >> reporter: last week, former c.i.a. director david petraeus told congressional panels in closed sessions that someone in the obama administration removed references to terrorism and al qaeda from his agency summary before it went to rice. a source told us the edits were made by the office of the director of national intelligence. republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham have led the call for a special committee to investigate. >> i was on "face the nation" the morning she came on and told that incredible story, and right after it, the president of the libyan national assembly said it was al qaeda. we know it was al qaeda. and yet she never changed her story. >> reporter: rice also shot back against mccain's criticisms. >> i do think that some of the statements he's made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to
this was a terrorist attack, that they had arrested 50 people and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as well. i think it was con temporary to -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
to al qaeda that individuals with ties to al qaeda were involved. and then yet, went on the sunday show and left a very different impression. let's not forget that on those sunday shows on "meet the press" as well as "face the nation" she also made the statement that al qaeda was decimated. and so it left a misleading impression to the american people. i was also troubled that they knew by the 21st the acting director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions
that the obama administration decimated al qaeda. that's something that rubs these republican senators the wrong way. i will tell you what she told them, i'm told, inside the classified briefing this morning, what she meant was it was the core of al qaeda, that's what the obama administration has decimated. but these republican senators think she's lef the impression it's al qaeda in general. last thing i will tell you i was told she did say to the republican senators behind closed doors she regrets saying what she said because she knows it was simply not right. >> where does this go from here? obviously investigating intelligence officials as well, i imagine? >> yes. as i said, the acting director of the cia also in this room. and senators, republicans and democrats, are not thrilled with the information that they got publicly or privately. but the -- what goes on from here more meetings. she's back here, we believe, this afternoon, tomorrow she has a meeting with one senator, bob corker of tennessee, probably others. she's going to make the rounds and she's going to keep trying to persuade sen
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
in benghazi that the intelligence community knew that there were links to al qaeda. as you remember, in five different television appearances, she said there was no evidence that the attack was preplanned. now senator mccain has said she misled the public. ambassador rice says she respect s mccain but that some of his criticisms are unfounded. as cbs news has reported her unclassified talking points were edited by the intelligence community, who removed references to al qaeda, not the white house or the state department, who did that specifically is under review by senate intelligence committee. >> margaret, thank you. >>> president obama meets with small business owners today to promote his solution to the fiscal cliff. the deadline is now 35 days away. the president is holding more events tomorrow and friday. "new york times" reports this morning that a budget deal could reduce the tax deduction millions pay on their mortgage interest. nancy cordes is on capitol hill. good morning. >> reporter: good morning to you, charlie, and norah. the president and house speake
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
as the aircraft carrier waits for the body of osama bin laden. it's may 2nd, 2011. the al qaeda leader has just been killed by navy s.e.a.l.s. in emails two admirals used code words to describe bin laden. the commander said fedex delivered the package. both trucks are safely en route. temp males heavily redacted have been released by the defense department. a few days earlier that strike group commander had asked another officer do i need any special religious certificate remonth niall preparations. after bin laden's burial at sea an admiral describes the scene. traditional procedures were followed. his body was washed and placed in a white sheet. the body was placed in a weighted bag. a military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated in to arabic by a native speaker. after the words were complete the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, where upon the deceased's body slid into the sea. according to the emails there aren't many witnesses. in response to the question any sailors watched the burial the heading of one e-mail says burial no sailors watched and
as the aircraft carrier "carl vinson" waits for the body of osama bin laden. it's may 2nd, 2011. the al qaeda leader's just been killed by navy s.e.a.l.s. in e-mails, two u.s. navy admirals used code words to describe bin laden. the commander of the carrier strike group says, fedex delivered the package, both trucks are safely en route, home base. the e-mails were just released in response to a lawsuit by the group judicial watch. a few days earlier, the question was asked, do i need any spiritual ceremonial preparations? "traditional procedures for islamic burial was followed. the deceased's body was washed and then placed in a white sheet. a military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated into arabic by a native speaker, after the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body slid into the sea. according to the e-mails, there aren't many witnesses. in ponce response to this question, the heading of one e-mail says, burial, no sailors watched. another says, only a small group of the leadership was informed,
that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. >> that is the defense of the obama administration today. in essence that this program is so targeted it saves civilian lives. what do you say to that in your case? >> well, i think it's very hard to assess that kind of claim without more information. information that the administration refuses to release. it's very easy for administration officials to make claims like this when there's no possibility that they're going to be held to account for the claims, no possibility that some court is going to order them to disclose information, no possibility that they'll be sksd foll -- asked follow-up questions. part of the reason we are in court asking judges to enforce the freedom of information act, asking judges to disclose more information is to allow the public to better assess the kinds of claims that the administration is now making, usually through unnamed officials in leaks to favored media. >> jodi, do you think this is the area where we've seen pe
that's islamic jihad or that's al qaeda or something else. total and complete cessation of all hostile activity initiated from the gaza strip. hamas controls gaza. they are responsible for gaza. >> will you ease the blockade of grauz as a result of this agreement? >> the thing is, wolf, over the last few years we've had a gradual lifting of restrictions, slow and steady, incremental, but a slow and steady process of easing restrictions. now, here you've got to put cause and effect in the right order. we only impose restrictions because of the hostility, because of the rockets, because of the violence, because of the terrorism. if the border is quiet, that enables us to be more forthcoming and arrangements agreed with egyptians say we'll start talking from tomorrow about a process to work on those issues. >> is there an agreement that the u.s. will now help egypt prevent smuggling of weapons into gaza from -- >> well, you saw what the bhous put out, and that for us is a big issue because we don't want to see hamas, and that's one of the issues that we'll be discussing in the coming days
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)